[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>But there's a lot of time that I stopped using the pure qmail-1.03 with LWQ
>instructions. And I bet a lot of are in the same situation.
What patch(es) did you find necessary?
>Isn't it a lot of work? And I need to install gcc & friends in most machines
>just to install qmail. I've got binaries of course, but I don't use them in
>different enterprises, since AFAIK DBJ license doesn't permit it.
Wrong. See:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html
>I agree that keeping qmail frozen is a tremendous security advantage and DBJ
>license is a really secure one, but c'mon, shouldn't we've some more
>flexibility?
What you want, or what the majority of qmail users wants, is largely
irrelevant. It's Dan's software, and he'll license however he sees
fit.
>Isn't it time at least for a new version with those few patches Peter said?
I'd like to see the documentation updated to include installation of
ucspi-tcp and daemontools, to make everything slashdoc/slashpackage/
slashcommand compliant[1], and there are minor enhancements like the
0.0.0.0, QMTP, big-todo, and big-concurrency patches that could be
added.
But what I'd rather see is a ``qmail 2.0'' that incorporates all of
these items with zeroseek and the rest of the stuff mentioned in
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/future.html, as well as whatever other goodies
DJB has dreamed up--which always exceed my expectations[2].
-Dave
Footnotes:
[1] http://cr.yp.to/slashdoc.html
http://cr.yp.to/slashcommand.html
http://cr.yp.to/slashpackage.html
[2] Kind of like Hofstader's Law, q.v.:
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~econra1/doc/hofstadter.html
